"Former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz took the stand here today as a witness for the defense, and disputed Oracle's claim that Java APIs were proprietary code from Sun. Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun. 'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software, 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people... We wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'" Whoopsie for Oracle.

Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.

Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.

The negotiations were over the implementation and the TCK (which you need to pass to call it Java). Google wrote their own implementation and called it Dalvik (not Java).

Swartz welcomed Google aboard at the time. This is no turn-around or revisionist history.

"Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.

The negotiations were over the implementation and the TCK (which you need to pass to call it Java). Google wrote their own implementation and called it Dalvik (not Java).

Swartz welcomed Google aboard at the time. This is no turn-around or revisionist history. "

Given the fact that Google actually borrowed source files from Sun's implementation, it's clear this was no clean-room implementation; in fact, Google was probably referring to the original sources as they wrote their code. Which means that Google's code is a derivative work and, thus, a copyright violation. But thanks for playing, anyway.

You were entitled to create Java like implementations of those APIs/VM, but to be able to state that your implementation was Java compatible with the Java trademark logo, you needed to certify your implementation.

You were entitled to create Java like implementations of those APIs/VM, but to be able to state that your implementation was Java compatible with the Java trademark logo, you needed to certify your implementation.

Except that's not what Oracle is arguing. They're arguing that Google actually copied certain Java sources, and that the Google implementation is a derivative work.

Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.